If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Julius Caesar

Michael Parenti is a good person and activist for the right things in my opinion. I am not sure if he was still a Professor when he wrote this book on Caesar but he was soon after removed and I was in touch with him around this time. He told me he had not done a study of the origins of Rome or the family trees of it's leading lights but agreed what I presented to him was interesting. He said his research focused on the vents of specific eras and just Rome - which at that time was pretty much all of the Old World except Parthia and India.

Here is an interview on democracynow with Amy Goodman doing the questioning.

"AMY GOODMAN: I would like to try to look at where we stand today, the state of the world, and why at this point you have decided to write this book about ancient Rome. How do you see the two fitting together?

MICHAEL PARENTI: Well, I discovered that ancient history is not so ancient. Many of the same issues attain an overweening, ruling aristocratic class that believes that everything belongs to them. They have an entitlement to the resources and labor of society. They have a right to plunder the rest of the world for self-enrichment, and I think we see the same thing today. I’m not one of those critics that believes U.S. foreign policy is confused, or stupid, or misinformed, or well-intentioned but it goes awry. I think it’s a brilliant policy filled with many brilliant, terrible, horrible victories. And that’s what we’re describing now. It’s systematically undermines any movement, any country, any leadership, any popular group that tries an alternative way of self-defining, self-developing, using the resources, the markets, the labor of their society for their own needs, rather than for a multi-corporate global system, a neo-liberal system, which seems to be the goal of this reactionary clique in office today.

AMY GOODMAN: Can I ask you what you think about Ralph Nader running for President of United States?

MICHAEL PARENTI: More than 20 years ago I coined — I believe I coined the phrase, "two-party monopolies" in my early edition of "Democracy For the Few." Ralph Nader is right; it is a two-party monopoly. Everything he says it about the influence of corporate America is true. I believe his presence will move the center of political gravity a little further to the left. I voted for him last time. I wouldn’t vote for him this time. I wish wasn’t do it being it, despite everything I say. I believe we are at a pivotal point, a very crucial pivotal point, and there are times when you have to pursue coalition politics against the forces like the kind we’re facing in the white house today. These guys are playing for keeps. They’re breaking every rule in the book. They carry out role call votes where they’ll a vote open for 15 hours to shift it over it their way. They’re redoing census and gerrymandering in states at any time they want. They’re stealing elections. So, we’re really facing a very crucial, and very dangerous enemy. And I think Ralph’s presence, the use of scarce resources, volunteers and all of that, I think that is not what we need right now.

AMY GOODMAN: You said we’re facing…

MICHAEL PARENTI: It hurts me to say it, because I really admire Ralph Nader and I consider him a friend. I don’t think I’m going to vote for him this time.

AMY GOODMAN: You said we’re facing a dangerous enemy. Would you say George Bush is the enemy?

MICHAEL PARENTI: That’s exactly who I had in Mind. George Bush, his associates, and the ruling clique he represents. The national security state is being totally unleashed to go on out there. In fact, the C.I.A. sounds more reasonable than George Bush. That’s got to be something when you can make the C.I.A. sound more balanced than Washington.

AMY GOODMAN: Why did you write a book today, at this period which you consider extremely grave, write a book on ancient Rome?

MICHAEL PARENTI: It’s a fascinating time, and it’s very relevant. It’s about the very same kind of struggle. John Edwards talks about the two Americas, you could talk about the two Rome’s. It was the same thing. What has come down to us in history is a view of ancient Rome that is totally indebted to the roman ruling class. Most historians today accept the view of Rome that the assassins had, the view of the rich aristocracy, which was to denounce any reformer as a demagogue, and to denounce the agitations of the people as the expressions of a mob and a rabble. And my investigation shows that the roman people weren’t a mob or a rabble. They were masons and carpenters, construction workers and dockers, teamsters and shopkeepers- all sorts of hard working people fighting for things like overthrowing a Kingship, instituting a republic, calling for debt cancellations against usury, calling for decent rents, rent and land controls, and land redistribution... Issues that are very much alive today. So it would be a good journey through time to see these same kinds of very vital issues.

AMY GOODMAN: Who was Julius Caesar, Michael Parenti?

MICHAEL PARENTI: Julius Caesar was an aristocrat who sided with the Roman people. He’s not my hero, but he was one of a long line of what we’ll call populare’s, which were popular leaders who tried to institute these reforms that the people were fighting for. The Gracchi brothers, Claudius and others. Caesar was the last. All of them were assassinated. That’s the way ruling classes work. If the elections don’t go their way, they will just assassinate the winner and escalate. We see the same things happening in Haiti today.

AMY GOODMAN: How was Julius Caesar assassinated?

MICHAEL PARENTI: He was assassinated by Brutus and Cassius, who were not very nice people; I examine them further. Brutus was a ruthless money lender who charged 45% interest, destroyed a whole community that couldn’t meet its debts, and extorted money from others. They killed Caesar because he was making these kinds of reforms: Imposing luxury taxes on the filthy rich, demanding that they use at least one-third of their labor force to be free labor, instead of slave labor. Trying to roll back slave labor and use free labor. He was doing things like this, and any ruling class in history, when it’s faced with reforms, defines these reforms as thievery and dangerous leveling, and sees them as undermining society. And they will go after the reformer, usually by demonizing him/her, calling him/her power hungry, usurper, this, that, and eventually resorting to acts of violence to settle the issue. May I also say that Rome is just fascinating on its own terms. Not just the parallels to today. These people were interesting to deal with…"

In reading this and looking at Wikipedia I have a couple of comments. Wikipedia says Caesar was an author but I think he had propagandists do his writing. Just like the top politicos of the present, his stooge or beard was named Hirtius. Parenti says Caesar was a fighter for the people and yet his acts invading Rome lead to the end of SPQR which although it gave a large chunk of the spoils to the richest including all Senators it also shared some bounty with the citizens. I think that was the end of such sharing unless you are thinking about oil rich states today. Yes, Julius was in a campaign to become the sole dictator and he was successful and part of this included getting the people on his side. He always was popular with his men and was known for screwing the conquered territory's women with the best of his men. They sang songs as they marched about his paying for the women but I have no proof he paid the women other than these songs. He also often lead his men into battle unlike many before him.

So did Caesar have the interests of average people in mind as he spoke things they wanted to hear or was it a matter of political campaign promises? Michael says he was genuine, and we can leave it to you to decide, because his life was over soon after he got total control. You can say this was how we got absolute Monarchies and Caesar translates as Czar and more obviously Kaiser.

The date of his birth is uncertain. Most reports say Julius Caesar was born in 100 BCE and some say 102. He is said to be a descendant of Aeneas and that is very important. The factions of the Trojan War are at best uncertain but most agree the families switched allegiances during the long course of the war, as they saw fit. In truth the people of Greece and Anatolia are of the same Phoenician stock if you look into the era or millennia before this war. The Hyksos rulers of Egypt similarly are not well defined in origin or even when they returned to rule Egypt. Yes, 'returned', I do say. Hyksos translates as foreigners. I will use a date of 1800 BCE for their return but just as is true in the post Hyksos period at Elephantine we have evidence of a garrison of what is called Jews on this strategic island, I say they were always present in some form.

I hazard a guess that Caesar was a 'son of Aeneas' as the legend says. The Brutti in Italy are also remnants of the Trojan War, and the name in Latin of the place Pythagoras settled when forced to leave Greece due to politics and spiritual beliefs is Bruttium. All of his biographers agree his mother was Phoenician but I say his father was as well, not matter if he was a Milesian, Phocean or many others including Lydian he can be traced to the same people called 'ancient ones' or ogygia by Plutarch who is said to be Greek, but Greeks are settled by the Danaus or DN of Homer. It is clearer that Macedonia was more advanced than Greece during the Trojan War, now that we have archaeology as a source rather than legends of liars. Same with the largest navy in the Mediterranean credited to the Sybarites near Bruttium and a place called Tara. I have connected dots to Silesians and Galatians pirates back from the time of Caesar to the Phoenician Pirates of Rhodes and Samos where Pythagoras lived. In the movie Spartacus we see Spartacus made a deal with Silesian Pirates and it could be Cilicia gets confused with Silesia in different reports at different times - or they both had pirates. In Rise of the Greeks by Michael Grant I saw him saying all Greek ports allowed Phoenicians access to trade and even take women away, as if they were the actual leading armed force of the whole region.

Their skull and bones emblem or totem was still on the stamps of Epirus I collected in my youth. I can relate to legends of ancestry and the effect it has on a youth, it lead to my lifelong interest in the origins of people, their families and a true history which always asks who are these people and where did they come from. I did not know at age five what this was called, cell diffusion history, may not have even been given such a name in the later 1950s. My given names Robert and Bruce as well as my last name Baird are connected with the DNN and BR or Brutti.

We are given various accounts of a legendary smell about Caesar as a priest, then soldier being captured by pirates who treated him well but he somehow takes over and kills them and later supplies a fleet of ships to his military command. It happened on the way to Rhodes after his father died when he was about 16 years old. I suspect just as I demonstrate with Virgil's Aeneid that there is a load of ass-kissing re-writing of earlier myths all designed to feed the ego and myth of a man with high aspirations and corrupt intent despite claiming to be a populist rather than elitist. That is the name of the two political facts in Rome at this time. It is also said people of class would switch from party to party and one can say class was then as now - all a matter of greed.

"Gaius Julius Caesar was born 12 July 100 BCE (though some cite 102 as his birth year). His father, also Gaius Julius Caesar, was a Praetor who governed the province of Asia and his mother, Aurelia Cotta, was of noble birth. Both held to the Populare ideology of Rome which favored democratization of government and more rights for the lower class as opposed to the Optimate factions’ claim of the superiority of the nobility and traditional Roman values which favored the upper classes. It should be understood that the Optimate and the Populare were not political parties in conflict with each other but, rather, political ideologies which many people shifted toward and from, regardless of class in society. The concept of appealing to the people for support, rather than seeking approval from the Roman Senate or the other Patricians, would work well for Caesar later in life.

Youth & Military Service

When he was sixteen, his father died and Caesar became the head of the family. Deciding that belonging to the priesthood would bring the most benefit to the family, he managed to have himself nominated as the new High Priest of Jupiter. As a priest not only had to be of patrician stock, but married to a patrician, Caesar broke off his engagement to a plebian girl and married the patrician, Cornelia, daughter of a high profile and influential member of the Populares, Lucius Cinna. When the Roman ruler Sulla declared himself dictator, he began a systematic purge of his enemies and particularly of those who held to the Populare ideology. Caesar was targeted and fled Rome but his sentence was lifted through the intercession of his mother’s family. Still, he was stripped of his position as priest and his wife’s dowry was confiscated. Left without means of supporting himself or his family, Caesar joined the army.

He proved himself an effective soldier, even being awarded the civic crown for saving a life in battle, and was promoted to the staff of the military legate to Bithynia to secure a fleet of ships. In this, as in his time as a soldier, Caesar was successful and, when Sulla died, he decided to return to Rome and try his luck as an orator (a modern-day lawyer). In this, too, he proved a success and became well known as an eloquent speaker.

It is said that when pirates told him he would be ransomed for twenty talents, Caesar claimed he was worth at least fifty.

In 75 BCE, while sailing to Greece, Caesar was kidnapped by pirates and held for ransom. In keeping with the high opinion he had of himself, it is said that when the pirates told him he would be ransomed for twenty talents, Caesar claimed he was worth at least fifty. While he was held captive by them, Caesar was treated well and consistently maintained a friendly relationship with the pirates. He is said to have repeatedly told them that, upon his release, he would hunt them down and have them crucified for the affront to his family and personal dignity and this threat the pirates understood as a joke. Upon his release, however, Caesar made good on that threat. He had the pirates’ throats slit before crucifixion, however, in a show of leniency owing to their easy treatment of him in captivity. This determination of Caesar’s, to do exactly what he said he would do, became one of his defining characteristics throughout his life."

Biography.com has a little variation on the story for you to read, and all these sites speak as if there is a great deal of certainty about what they are saying - though some will use words like "allegedly". I suspect teachers use this stuff for tests in classes.

Allegedly, a descendent of Trojan prince Aeneas, Julius Caesar's auspicious birth, c. July 12 or 13, 100 B.C., marked the beginning of a new chapter in Roman history. By age 31, Caesar had fought in several wars and become involved in Roman politics. After several alliances, he became dictator of the Roman Empire. This led to a senatorial coup, and Caesar's eventual assassination, on the Ides of March.

Early Years

A politically adept and popular leader of the Roman Republic, Julius Caesar significantly transformed what became known as the Roman Empire, by greatly expanding its geographic reach and establishing its imperial system.

While it has long been disputed, it's estimated that Julius Caesar was born in Rome on July 12 or 13, 100 BC. While he hailed from Roman aristocrats, his family was far from rich. When Caesar was 16 his father, Gaius Caesar, died. He remained close to his mother, Aurelia.

The Rome of Caesar's youth was unstable. An element of disorder ruled the Republic, which had discredited its nobility and seemed unable to handle its considerable size and influence.

At around the time of his father's death, Caesar made a concerted effort to side with the country's nobility."

Another source raises an item I suspect is false in reference to Caesar selling his body to a man. But you never know, his troops did sing songs saying he had to pay for his Gallic women. More importantly we have dates which could show Julius had no father at age 12 or 13. This source is widely copied and who knows where it originates. http://wordpress.as.edu.au/advanced2...aphy-of-JC.pdf

"102/100 BCE: Gaius Julius Caesar was born (by Caesarean section according to an unlikely legend) of Aurelia and Gaius Julius Caesar, a praetor. His family had noble, patrician roots, although they were neither rich nor influential in this period. His aunt Julia was the wife of Gaius Marius, leader of the Popular faction.

c. 85 BCE: His father died, and a few years later he was betrothed and possibly married to a wealthy young woman, Cossutia. This betrothal/marriage was soon broken off, and at age 18 he married Cornelia, the daughter of a prominent member of the Popular faction; she later bore him his only legitimate child, a daughter, Julia. When the Optimate dictator, Sulla, was in power, he ordered Caesar to divorce her; when Caesar refused, Sulla proscribed him (listed him among those to be executed), and Caesar went into hiding. Caesar's influential friends and relatives eventually got him a pardon.

c. 79 BCE: Caesar, on the staff of a military legate, was awarded the civic crown (oak leaves) for saving the life of a citizen in battle. His general sent him on an embassy to Nicomedes, the king of Bithynia, to obtain a fleet of ships; Caesar was successful, but subsequently he became the butt of gossip that he had persuaded the king (a homosexual) only by agreeing to sleep with him. When Sulla died in 78, Caesar returned to Rome and began a career as a orator/lawyer (throughout his life he was known as an eloquent speaker) and a life as an elegant man-about-town.

75 BCE: While sailing to Greece for further study, Caesar was kidnapped by Cilician pirates and held for ransom. When informed that they intended to ask for 20 talents, he is supposed to have insisted that he was worth at least 50. He maintained a friendly, joking relationship with the pirates while the money was being raised, but warned them that he would track them down and have them crucified after he was released. He did just that, with the help of volunteers, as a warning to other pirates, but he first cut their throats to lessen their suffering because they had treated him well."

The Nicomedes mention takes me into his family tree to find Celts (AKA Keltoi in Greece - and the ancient ones or DN). Then one sees people invading and doing nothing or enforcing the status quo in a large territory beyond just Greece. It was shortly after Alexander of Macedon (AKA 'the Great" who definitely was gay as were Cretans and Spartans who just happen to be where we find Caesar's Nichomedes) united a large area which I say was ruled by Phoenicians like the Hatti or Milesians two millennia earlier still. This is a wiki excerpt.

"He commenced his reign by putting to death two of his brothers but the third, subsequently called Zipoetes II, raised an insurrection against him and succeeded in maintaining himself, for some time, in the independent sovereignty of a considerable part of Bithynia. Meanwhile, Nicomedes was threatened with an invasion from Antiochus I Soter, king of the Seleucid Empire, who had already made war upon his father, Zipoetes I, and, to strengthen himself against this danger, he concluded an alliance with Heraclea Pontica and shortly afterwards with Antigonus II Gonatas. The threatened attack, however, passed over with little injury. Antiochus actually invaded Bithynia but withdrew again without risking a battle.

It was more against his brother than his foreign enemies that Nicomedes now called in the assistance of more powerful auxiliaries and entered into an alliance with the Celts who, under Leonnorius and Lutarius, had arrived on the opposite side of the Bosphorus and were, at this time, engaged in the siege of Byzantium, 277 BC. Having furnished them with the means of crossing into Asia, where they founded Galatia, he first turned the arms of his new auxiliaries against Zipoetes II, whom he defeated and put to death, and thus reunited the whole of Bithynia under his dominion.[2]"

As suspected we have Cilicia and Silesia connected but I am surprised to find a book or two connecting them directly to Germany at this time. I think you can now see why Alexander had to get the consent of the Kelts before he went off to spread his Empire - else his base of operations would be taken away.

Craig M. White - 2007 - ‎History
These Silesians probably come from the Cilician region of the Hittite {This is Hatti and Chatti and Katti} Empire. The battle-axes of ancient Silesia are traced back to Troy by Gordon Childe,585 ...

Contrary to how Michael Parenti presented Brutus as a prime mover in the assassination of his close friend Julius Caesar who had a Brutus as his Admiral when he invaded Britain (named after the Brutti) we have Shakespeare to interpret. It is possible both perspectives are correct to some degree.

Shakespeare was an alchemist or hermeticist whether you want to believe Francis Bacon was an alchemist is another matter. Rosicrucians will say he was and he certainly wanted people to believe he was. And yet, you still have teacher sources such as what I will quote referring to alchemy as "discredited' and the like. THEY know NOTHING! They pontificate proudly their ignorance and will never learn it seems. I humbly suggest when Shakespeare uses the word alchemy like his close friend Ben Jonson who write a book called The Alchemist - that he knew more about it than these buffoons. A more interesting speculation might involved what Brutus and his family knew about it.

"At the end of Act I, Scene III, Casca is speaking to Cassius, who has just revealed his plan to convert Brutus to their scheme. Casca is in full agreement, and he comments:

O, he sits high in all the people's hearts,
And that which would appear offense in us,
His countenance, like richest alchemy,
Will change to virtue and to worthiness.

The reference to Alchemy, or the ancient and discredited science of transmutation, touches at least two significant points.

First: Brutus is a beloved member of society, and his involvement in any plan or idea gives it credibility. In this case, Casca is remarking that if the public is initially against their plan, their opinion will turn -- "like richest alchemy" -- when they see Brutus is involved. This interpretation is implicit in the text.

Second: Brutus himself is not fully on board with the scheme. His opinion is actively being swayed by Cassius and others, but he does not know the full extent of the plan, nor has he agreed to be an active part of it. Casca hopes that Brutus, on having the entire plan explained, will change his own opinion -- "like richest alchemy" -- and give his blessing. This interpretation is less implicit, and must be extrapolated from context."

Caesar spent a lot of time in Gaul near the place Pythagoras was made or initiated as a Druid. He grew to admire his foe Vercingetorix and there is a video on the web re-enacting a discussion between them. I imagine the bounty on the heads of Druids had brought an end to any public infrastructure such as the University which was there in the era of Pythagoras but I also know people would still be practicing druidism and the ideals of it are evident in what Vercingetorix did in spite of attempted bribes and threats to his life and that of his family. I have a hard time seeing how Julius would not at a minimum have learned the prevailing intellectual system of his era - Thoth/Hermes, which studies Hermeticism and is closely connected with Pythagoras and Jesus who also studied the Therapeutae system in Egypt and at Qumran. Remember Jesus is a title meaning Brotherhood in druidic Ogham, as I have so often referred to and which I now find all kinds of authors agreeing with.

The book that follows mentions Ogham and how Jesus was near Glastonbury and other places I have covered. I have a hard time believing my work did not inspire this person.

"

Published: March 15, 2010

Publisher: HAMPTON ROADS PUBLISHING

Language: English

ISBN - 10: 1571746072

ISBN - 13: 9781571746078

From the Publisher

Where was Jesus for the first thirty years of his life? Where was he taught? Who were his teachers? Jesus: The Explosive Story of the 30 Lost Years and the Ancient Mystery Religions offers startling new evidence culled from hard-to-find Vatican texts, theosophical classics, legends, and systems of hermetic symbolism and used to construct a radical new timeline of Jesus' life. The book clearly shows that Jesus spent seven years in Egypt, a number of years in England, and several years in India and Tibet before beginning his public ministry in Palestine.

This is the most comprehensive look at the direct links and similarities between Jesus' teachings and the teachings of various mystery religions and sects that were popular at the time, including the Essenes, Buddhists, and Druids. Author Tricia McCannon offers compelling evidence that places Jesus' life and mission firmly in the context of deeper spiritual teachings that came before him."

The five things you might not know about Caesar does not bring a lot to our table but I do wonder if Cleopatra's other sons including Juba are spoken about, Frank Joseph traces Juba II to American around the Hopewell or Burrow's Caves.

I also would like to know why he is not discussed as being a trained priest and how much this training includes about being a back-stabbing political person.

The Greeks called the Romans Barbarians, the Romans called the Berbers a similar name (berberoi might even be what became the word Barbarian) and every one called everyone else all manner of names. Then you get to study the name-calling liars and you get a degree if you repeat the lies and war-mongering rhetoric. Who is stupid or barbarians - was it the people who had escaped to the Americas? Oh, yea, they were called savages and primitives, in books like those written by Diamond Jenness and still used in schools in Canada when my nephews were "learning'. Here is a Roman reporter telling us about a great warrior who beat some people in Belgium.

"Cassius Dio (164-c.235).

This war was begun by the Eburones, under Ambiorix as chief. They claimed they had been roused to action because they were annoyed at the presence of the Romans, who were commanded by Sabinus and Lucius Cotta, lieutenants. The truth was, however, that they scorned those officers, thinking that they would not prove competent to defend their men and not expecting that Caesar would quickly make an expedition against their tribe. They accordingly came upon the soldiers unawares, expecting to take the camp without striking a blow, and, when they failed of this, had recourse to deceit.

For Ambiorix, after planting ambuscades in the most suitable spots, came to the Romans after sending a herald to arrange for a parley, and represented that he had taken part in the war against his will and was himself sorry; but against the others he advised them to be on their guard, for his countrymen would not obey him and were intending to attack the garrison at night. Consequently he made the suggestion to them that they should abandon Eburonia, since they would be in danger if they remained, and should move on as quickly as possible to some of their comrades who were wintering near by.

Upon hearing this the Romans believed him, especially as Ambiorix had received many favors from Caesar and seemed to be repaying his kindness in this way. They hastily packed up their belongings, and setting out just after nightfall, fell into the ambush, where they suffered a terrible reverse. Cotta with many others perished immediately. Sabinus was sent for by Ambiorix under the pretext of saving him, for the Gallic leader was not present at the ambush and at that time was still thought to be trustworthy. On his arrival, however, Ambiorix seized him, stripped him of his arms and clothing, and then struck him down with his javelin, uttering boastful words over him, such as these: 'How can such creatures as you wish to rule us who are so great?' This was the fate that these men suffered. The rest managed to break through to the camp from which they had set out, but when the barbarians assailed that, too, and they could neither repel them nor escape, they killed one another.

After this event some others of the neighboring tribes revolted, among them the Nervians, though Quintus [Tullius] Cicero, a brother of [the orator] Marcus [Tullius] Cicero and lieutenant of Caesar, was wintering in their territory. Ambiorix added them to his force and engaged in battle with Cicero. The contest was close, and after capturing some prisoners alive the chieftain tried to deceive him also in some manner, but being unable to do so, besieged him. Thanks to his large force and the experience which he had gained from his service with the Romans, together with information that he obtained from the individual captives, he quickly managed to enclose him with a palisade and ditch.

There were numerous battles, as was natural in such a situation, and far larger numbers of the barbarians perished, because there were more of them. They, however, by reason of the multitude of their army did not feel their loss at all, whereas the Romans, who were not numerous in the first place, kept continually growing fewer and were hemmed in without difficulty. They were unable to care for their wounds through lack of the necessary appliances, and did not have a large supply of food, because they had been besieged unexpectedly. No one came to their aid, though many were wintering at no great distance; for the barbarians guarded the roads with care and caught all who were sent out and slaughtered them before the eyes of their friends. Now when they were in danger of being captured, a Nervian who was friendly to them as the result of kindness shown him and was at this time besieged with Cicero, furnished a slave of his to send as a messenger through the lines. Because of his dress and his speech, which was that of the natives, he was able to mingle with the enemy as one of their number without attracting notice, and afterwards went his way.

In this way Caesar, who had not yet returned to Italy but was still on the way, learned of what was taking place, and turning back, he took with him the soldiers in the winter establishments through which he passed, and pressed rapidly on. Meanwhile, being afraid that Cicero, in despair of assistance, might suffer disaster or even capitulate, he sent a horseman on ahead. For he did not trust the servant of the Nervian, in spite of having received an actual proof of his actual good will, fearing that he might pity his countrymen and work the Romans some great evil; so he sent a horseman of the allies who knew the dialect of Eburones and was dressed in their garb. And in order that even he might not reveal anything, voluntarily or involuntarily, he gave him no verbal message and wrote to Cicero in Greek all that he wished to say, in order that even if the letter were captured, it should even so be meaningless to the barbarians and afford them no information. [...] Now the horseman reached the camp of the Romans, but not being able to come close up to it, he fastened the letter to a javelin, and acting as if he were hurling it against the enemy, fixed it purposely in a tower. Thus Cicero learned of the approach of Caesar, and so took courage and held out more zealously.

But the barbarians for a long time knew nothing of the assistance Caesar was bringing; for he journeyed by night, bivouacking by day in very obscure places, in order that he might fall upon them as unexpectedly as possible. But they finally grew suspicious because of the excessive cheerfulness of the besieged and sent out scouts; and learning from them that Caesar was already drawing near, they set out against him, thinking to attack him while off his guard. He learned of it in time and remained where he was that night, for the purpose of appearing to have only a few followers, to have suffered from the journey, and to fear an attack from them, and so in this manner to draw them to the higher ground. And thus it turned out; for in their contempt of him because of this move they charged up the hill, and met with so severe a defeat that they carried on the war against him no longer."

What is considered good strategy by victors is called deceit when used by those who were defeated, and the gods are always against the heathens. Lucius Seneca has some dots to offer in a history no witness can aver or testify about. You can call it pumpkinification is there is truly such a word.

"One must be born either a Pharaoh or a fool. If I choose to answer, I will say whatever trips off my tongue. Who has ever made the historian produce witness to swear for him? But if an authority must be produced, ask of the man who saw Drusilla translated to heaven: the same man will aver he saw Claudius on the road, dot and carry one. [Sidenote: Virg. Aen. ii, 724] Will he nill he, all that happens in heaven he needs must see. He is the custodian of the Appian Way; by that route, you know, both Tiberius and Augustus went up to the gods. Question him, he will tell you the tale when you are alone; before company he is dumb. You see he swore in the Senate that he beheld Drusilla mounting heavenwards, and all he got for his good news was that everybody gave him the lie: since when he solemnly swears he will never bear witness again to what he has seen, not even if he had seen a man murdered in open market. What he told me I report plain and clear, as I hope for his health and happiness."